I'm no expert with regards to this (I'm a programmer btw), but i do understand in a nutshell how our universe works.

So maybe let's answer your question one at a time and feel free to reply back.

Regarding your first question as to how elements of more than 2 protons have been formed, the answer is not Big Bang actually. They are formed from stars, through nuclear fusion.

You see, nuclear fusion only works under extremely high temperatures (thus overcoming the repulsive force between any nuclei), and the closer the star is on its demise (supernova) the hotter it gets (thus making fusion of heavier elements possible).

So the direct answer to 1 is nuclear fusion, which are being done in the stars.

Now if you are really eager to learn how nuclear fusion works, just google it or pick any nuclear physics book.

zephidel wrote:I'm no expert with regards to this (I'm a programmer btw), but i do understand in a nutshell how our universe works.

So maybe let's answer your question one at a time and feel free to reply back.

Regarding your first question as to how elements of more than 2 protons have been formed, the answer is not Big Bang actually. They are formed from stars, through nuclear fusion.

You see, nuclear fusion only works under extremely high temperatures (thus overcoming the repulsive force between any nuclei), and the closer the star is on its demise (supernova) the hotter it gets (thus making fusion of heavier elements possible).

So the direct answer to 1 is nuclear fusion, which are being done in the stars.

Now if you are really eager to learn how nuclear fusion works, just google it or pick any nuclear physics book.

If that how you want to think about that way, fine. Im not your boss, and I dont tell you how to think.

But my thing with evolution is that it does not line up with basic, well known, observed facts of the universe. This is why I am displaying facts rather that conjecturing on how possible or impossible it is for such and such a species could not have formed, because all evolutionists ever do is just conjecture its possibility. The facts are well known. There not going anywhere.

It is simply impossible for the theory of evolution to hold up against well known, observed facts that it does not agree with, or rather, are disproved by.

What I mean by irrefutable is that if I walk into any science class, creationist or evolutionist, they will agree with nuclear forces, the decline in earth's magnetic field strength, etc. They are commonly accepted facts, and evolution does not line up with it, and as a result, it is disproven. The thing about evolution is that it has to line up with every area of science it touches, and it dos not, thus, it is not possible or viable.

Well, in reference to that video, 1) The first man is not even a scientist. He is a man making a assumption. He has no evidence of the 5 minute claim, and he really should have look up other evidence for the flood, such as the Austin Chalk.

You of all people who ignore facts.

2)This young man, instead of assuming that there is no water in our solar system other than Earth, should have looked it up. He would have easily found out that water was found on mars.

However, he should have said that that water has been in a frozen state, which is not enough for life to exist on mars. Also, he should have said that the temperature conditions on mars do not allow life to exist.

3)Again with the water. He should have looked it up.

4)This man who narrates this video is simply making things technical. Of course earths orbit is not a circle, but an ellipse. However, this still does not refute the fact that we are in just the right place for liquid water to exist.

5)The evolutionists narrator sais that the creationist failed to mention that 37% is the real distance that he is talking about. 37% is 50 billion meters, as stated in the movie. Well keep in mind that 50 billion meters=80 million miles. The creationists was not talking about moving earth back that distance, but merely 5% of our current distance. Oh, and 80 million miles is 86 percent of our current distance, not 37%. 5% of our current distance is 4.6 million miles, which is plenty to begin either overheating or freezing.

Obviously, this young man did not pay attention in earth space science class in high school.

This is only one creationists. You are stereotyping creationists and assuming my intelligence level as low just because I disagree with you.

Who is the true ignoramus: the man who ignores facts or the man who hasnt researched them in depth?

Obviously, there is more hope for someone who is willing to be educated rather than someone who has plenty of knowledge and yet ignores facts which disproves evolution.

Offer still stands. Post the evidence. If your evidence for the theory of evolution is so solid, then post it in a thread.

So you post the same thing three times, and you think I wont read it the first time? Bro go somewhere with your intimidating tactics. They wont work on me.

Instead of laughing and insulting, you should debate with and educate that young man.

I don't like to ridicule people, but you creationists make it very difficult and really don't deserve anything more. I also pity you, though. Your parents must have been real Bible thumpers. I can't imagine what it must be like to live in the kind of world you live in. You're missing out on so much, and this is the only life you will ever have. Repent (open your mind), before it's too late. Your beliefs are shared by a tiny, tiny, tiny (very tiny) fraction of the world's population. Is this not evidence that you and your ilk might - just might - be mistaken?

Tomm, as I've said to you before, you do not belong here. This is a science forum. You are not a scientist, nor are you interested in science. We often get people here who do not know very much, but we welcome them because they want to learn. You do not want to learn. You are not welcome here. You just want to annoy. No creationist has yet won a debate against a scientist. There's a reason for that. Dawkins, though, explained why he refused to debate creationists: